talkmagic.co.uk

As I'm sure you all can't have helped but to notice, Children in Need is coming up, and I have two gripes which I'm aching to unleash on... well, you guys... about the whole affair.

First a disclaimer - charity is good, raising money for charity is good, "Children in Need" is good. I have no problems with those things. However...

1) It does grind my gears that they do this whole big money auction thing on Radio 2. I know, I know, Terry Wogan is Mr. C.i.N., but still - I think it's just a tad unfair to make those who enjoy waking up Radio 2 in the morning (including me - yes, I am an old man), with the nonsense banter and the corny old pop songs, spend a week listening to very rich people pay tens of thousands of pounds for things that are way beyond the grasp of the average earner. It makes for totally irrelevant and really quite annoying radio - what do they think I'm thinking? "Ooh, go on, somebody! Pay an extra ten grand for a picnic with the queen! It's for a good cause!"

Please don't get me wrong - it's great that people with that much money are doing something charitable with it rather than bathing in champagne or whatever, but does it have to be on the most listened to national breakfast show in the UK? Couldn't the BBC host a few charity auction balls or something, and everyone who knows they have that much money can go and have a delightful evening, rather then force it into the ears of people who just want something gentle to wake up to?

My main sulk about it is that it's just really, really boring - it sounds like one of those late-night phone in quizzes, or a teleshopping channel.

"It's only a week", "it's for charity, don't be mean" - look, I pay my license fees - many household across the UK struggle to do even that. There are many worthy causes out there, but they have to fund raise for their own PR, pay a lot for their 30 second TV adverts etc. I think it's reasonable to be irked by the BBC effectively wiping your programme of choice (yes, even for just a week), for one tediously long fundraising effort, especially when that takes the form of reminding me every 10 minutes I will never have £10,000 to spend on an afternoon of birdwatching with Bill Oddie (or Kate Humble, for that matter ).

Children in Need, the programme? Great. Maybe one morning of million dollar auctioning or whatever it's called - even that I could cope with. But to be forced to listen to Chris Moyles for a week... well...

First rant over... and the second, slightly shorter one...

2) What the bleeping bleeping bleep bleep bleep is "Pudsey" all about?! I HATE that bear! The very idea of him frustrates me beyond belief! It's just so patronising, the way they tag it on at the end... "go on, ring in and give some money... for Pudsey." What the flying monkey nuts does Pudsey have to do with it?! Are we actually, literally, raising millions to have a furry mascot suit repaired?! It's NOT for Pudsey for ****'s sake, it's for CHILDREN!

Like, child abuse, lack of resources for kids with disabilities etc. isn't enough of a motivator on it's own, or doesn't have a friendly enough face to give money to. Surely that's the point?!

"Please, give some money for the children who desperately need it."
"Ooh... hmm... er, I dunno... er..."
"Go on... it's for Pudsey."
"Oh! Well! If you'd said that! Of course! For Pudsey, I understand. Here you go."

Have a teddy bear logo, whatever, but stop referring to him like he's bl**dy person who requires emotional interaction!

Strewth...

As a BBC tax - er, I mean licence payer I must stand up and say what great value for money we get from Farlsborough.

I totally agree

So you're unlikely to be bidding twenty grand for that cruise and two hour one on one with Marco Pierre White, or the day with The Blades flying display team ? Yes I also listen to Sir T.W. each morning!
My gripe would be that although raising huge sums for charity needs a lot of promotion, I was brought up on the principle of when giving alms, never let the right hand know what the left was doing. In other words, do it but don't go banging on about it, or making sure everyone and their dog knows you've done something for ‘charideee’. There’s a concept of ‘The Silent Knights’, a group allied to the Templar Knights where they do a great deal of such work but agree to never let anyone outside the group know how much or who did what. Even the recipients are kept in the dark. Perhaps a bit extreme but, IMHO, not a bad way of doing things.

I shan't be watching the TV Terrython next week either, not something I can stick with for very long.

Just to merge two topics, this time last year Russell Brand said live on Radio 2 that Pudsey Bear was likely a paedophile. Funny how he wasn't sacked for that - oh, that's right; the Daily Mail missed it.

I agree. Overpaid people overpaying for low value items and a shoutout on the radio to acknowledge their donation.

If you have that much money, you should probably donate it without the need to get something in return. You should also do it privately for your own self satisfaction that you've done something good, not so everyone knows you're doing it.

Here's an idea. Why not pay for one of those things, the money goes to the charity, and then give the prize back to the charity too, so they can give it to some kids (if suitable)? That way you're giving even more than you've paid.

And all that anonymously.

I write 'em a cheque, I post it on the way to the pub, I watch the QI Special when I get home.

The callcenter I work in ask for volunteers to man the donation lines whenever the Beeb has one of these "Charideeee" events. Still haven't signed up to help with one, if only because I believe the phone lines would be horrendous. Publicly visible phone number, drunk people saying they'd pay a tenner if (C List Celebrity Woman) would do something unsavoury... I get enough stuff like that in everyday work, I don't want to do that for free...

Two things really annoy me about both Children in Need and it's evil half brother Red Nose Day (or Comedy Relief or whatever it's called...).

Firstly superstars like Bono and Sting and Paul McCartney popping up to encourage us to hand over money. Here's an idea. Bono and Sting and Paul McCartney are all VERY RICH. In fact they are so rich that they will never ever need or want for anything ever again. So why don't they agree to sign over all publishing rights to their material to charity so that from now on every penny that their music makes goes to charity? After all, aren't they now rich enough? But they won't do this will they? No. Because they're self-serving hypocrites.

Secondly do we really need to see any more bank managers sitting in baths of baked beans in the mistaken belief that it is funny. It's not. And sitting in a bath of baked beans (or anything else similarly stupid) does not in any way, shape, or form make you "whacky" or "crazy".

I'm on a roll now....

And BIG cheques. Why do we need to see some idiot in front of the cameras handing over a BIG cheque to some 'C' list celebrity? Are we all so stupid that we can't understand the concept of a cheque being handed over unless that said cheque is 4 feet long and a foot wide?

Charity should be about dignity and contributing what you can afford, not this annual circus and pat-on-the-back fest.

What always grates with me is the nonsense people do for these occasions. You see your boss wearing a kilt and ask why - "I'm doing it for Children in Need" WTF just put your hand in your pocket. Or the people who won't donate until they see a hairy man getting his chest waxed.

Such stunts turn it into entertainment and the nature of charity is forgotten.

As my granny would say "wit a load a pish!"

They should rename it Egos in Need.

Heh, well, there was me thinking I'd get it in the neck for not being public spirited enough - turns out I'm in good company!

Wandy, the big cheques serve a very important purpose... it lets everyone at home see how much people are giving or receiving

And Mandrake, I totally agree with you. That's why I think direct debit to a charity is such a good idea. In my eyes that's what it should be about - discreet, regular giving to charity which is part of your budget, doesn't rub it in the faces of others and doesn't self serve to give you a kick of aren't-I-a-great-person warm and fuzzies every time you reach into your pocket. Money in, some money out to those who need it, job done.

Annoying as it still is, I do have a little more respect for the givers on R2 who choose to stay anonymous.

As for the whole whacky stunts thing, you're right TMW - it's a sad day when the need of another human won't motivate us to give money, but we'll happily pay a fiver to see the boss take a bucketful of jelly over the head, or whatever. And, y'know, it's just not funny either.

But hey, "do something different for Pudsey..."

Farlsborough wrote:Wandy, the big cheques serve a very important purpose... it lets everyone at home see how much people are giving or receiving

thats wrong. the reason why they produce big cheques, is that the writing on them is big writing, including the name of the company that is giving the cheque..

free advertising.And on the bbc too!
( and remember those donations usualy have tax bennifits as well)

(I have to say though, that I quite enojy some of the show.)

Well I'm going out on my own here and am going to say that I think these things are a brilliant idea.

Ok I get what everyone's saying but the thing that these shows do really well is to encourage people to raise and give money that they otherwise wouldn't do. Alot of money is raised by comic relief, sport relief and children in need for very good causes that otherwise would have just stayed in someones wallet and got spent in the pub.

themagicwand wrote:Firstly superstars like Bono and Sting and Paul McCartney popping up to encourage us to hand over money. Here's an idea. Bono and Sting and Paul McCartney are all VERY RICH. In fact they are so rich that they will never ever need or want for anything ever again. So why don't they agree to sign over all publishing rights to their material to charity so that from now on every penny that their music makes goes to charity? After all, aren't they now rich enough? But they won't do this will they? No. Because they're self-serving hypocrites.

The Irish government has always given artists and rock musicians tax breaks to encourage them to keep their resident status. They also donated some ofthe tax collected from such people to charidee, but when they decided to stop the breaks (last year, I think), guess who moved its corporate accounts to Holland to be taxed there at a lower rate? U2.

For Children In Need I'm doing a sponsored not-offending-anyone-on-talkmagic week. Any of you idiots want to put your hand in your pockets?!